[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The GreatViews expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.

Tehran, Iran, Jul. 16 – Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described Israel on Sunday as “satanic and cancerous” and praised the Lebanese group Hezbollah for its “jihad” against the Jewish state.

“This regime is an infectious tumour for the entire Islamic world”, Khamenei said in a speech that was aired on state television.

He rejected the demand by U.S. President George W. Bush that Hezbollah disarm, vowing, “This will never happen”.

He also described the Bush administration as the “most hideous” U.S. government in recent years.

Meanwhile, prominent Lebanese politician Walid Jumblat said on Sunday that Lebanon had become a battleground for Tehran’s war with Tel Aviv.

“The war is no longer that of Lebanon. It is an Iranian war”, Jumblat told the Arabic satellite station al-Arabiya as Israeli armed forces continued to attack targets in southern Lebanon.

Today, we the G-8 Leaders express our deepening concern about the situation in the Middle East, in particular the rising civilian casualties on all sides and the damage to infrastructure. We are united in our determination to pursue efforts to restore peace. We offer our full support for the UN Secretary General's mission presently in the region. The root cause of the problems in the region is the absence of a comprehensive Middle East peace.

The immediate crisis results from efforts by extremist forces to destabilize the region and to frustrate the aspirations of the Palestinian, Israeli and Lebanese people for democracy and peace. In Gaza, elements of Hamas launched rocket attacks against Israeli territory and abducted an Israeli soldier. In Lebanon, Hizbollah, in violation of the Blue Line, attacked Israel from Lebanese territory and killed and captured Israeli soldiers, reversing the positive trends that began with the Syrian withdrawal in 2005, and undermining the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora.

These extremist elements and those that support them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos and provoke a wider conflict. The extremists must immediately halt their attacks.

It is also critical that Israel, while exercising the right to defend itself, be mindful of the strategic and humanitarian consequences of its actions. We call upon Israel to exercise utmost restraint, seeking to avoid casualties among innocent civilians and damage to civilian infrastructure and to refrain from acts that would destabilize the Lebanese government.

The most urgent priority is to create conditions for a cessation of violence that will be sustainable and lay the foundation for a more permanent solution. This, in our judgment, requires:

The return of the Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon unharmed;
An end to the shelling of Israeli territory;
An end to Israeli military operations and the early withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza;
The release of the arrested Palestinian ministers and parliamentarians.
The framework for resolving these disputes is already established by international consensus.

In Lebanon, UN Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1680 address the underlying conditions that gave rise to this crisis. We urge the UN Security Council to develop a plan for the full implementation of these resolutions.

We extend to the Government of Lebanon our full support in asserting its sovereign authority over all its territory in fulfillment of UNSCR 1559. This includes the deployment of Lebanese Armed Forces to all parts of the country, in particular the South, and the disarming of militias. We would welcome an examination by the UN Security Council of the possibility of an international security/monitoring presence.

We also support the initiation of a political dialogue between Lebanese and Israeli officials on all issues of concern to both parties. In addition, we will support the economic and humanitarian needs of the Lebanese people, including the convening at the right time of a donors conference.

In Gaza, the disengagement of Israel provided an opportunity to move a further step toward a two state solution under the Road Map. All Palestinian parties should accept the existence of Israel, reject violence, and accept all previous agreements and obligations, including the Roadmap. For its part, Israel needs to refrain from unilateral acts that could prejudice a final settlement and agree to negotiate in good faith.

Our goal is an immediate end to the current violence, a resumption of security cooperation and of a political engagement both among Palestinians and with Israel. This requires:

An end to terrorist attacks against Israel;
A resumption of the efforts of President Abbas to ensure that the Palestinian government complies with the Quartet principles;
Immediate expansion of the temporary international mechanism for donors established under the direction of the Quartet;
Israeli compliance with the Agreement on Movement and Access of November 2005 and action on other steps to ease the humanitarian plight of the people of Gaza and the West Bank;
Resumption of security cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis;
Action to ensure that the Palestinian security forces comply with Palestinian law and with the Roadmap, so that they are unified and effective in providing security for the Palestinian people;
Resumption of dialogue between Palestinian and Israeli political officials.
These proposals are our contribution to the international effort underway to restore calm to the Middle East and provide a basis for progress towards a sustainable peace, in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. The Quartet will continue to play a central role. The G-8 welcomes the positive efforts of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan as well as other responsible regional actors to return the region to peace. We look forward to the report of the Secretary General's mission to the Security Council later this week which we believe could provide a framework for achieving our common objectives.

Delicate Intelligence information coming out of Hezbollah indicated that the 2 missing captives of the Israeli Army Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev have been smuggled outside Southern Lebanon to the capital.

They are secretly being held at the Embassy of Iran in Beirut, under direct Iranian security guards supervision.

In the global struggle against terrorist groups, Hezbollah has been something of a blind spot. A long-time cats-paw of Iran, espousing a radical ideology, the western anchor of the Shiite crescent, Hezbollah has enjoyed virtual immunity in the war on terrorism.

Until last week that is.

In response to a small-scale incursion and kidnapping of two of its soldiers by the terror group, Israel has unleashed a massive response seeking a more thorough solution to the Hezbollah problem. Vladimir Putin showed his keen eye for the obvious when he stated, “it is our impression that aside from seeking to return the abducted soldiers, Israel is pursuing wider goals." No kidding, and long overdue at that.

It’s not as if the United States doesn’t have a bill of particulars against Hezbollah. This group has been responsible for more American deaths than any terrorist group after al Qaeda. Let’s not forget the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that took the lives of 241 Marines. Or the bombing of our Beirut embassy, which killed 63, of whom 17 were Americans. Or the bombing of our embassy in Kuwait. Or the kidnapping, torture, long term captivity and ultimate death of Beirut station chief William F. Buckley. Or the other Americans taken hostage in Lebanon in the 1980s. Or the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847, in which Petty Officer Robert Stethem was beaten, shot, and thrown out of the aircraft onto the tarmac of the Beirut airport. Or Kuwait Air Flight 221, which resulted in two USAID officials being killed. Or the 1990 murder of Colonel William R. Higgins. More recent reports have Hezbollah supplying snipers to insurgents in Iraq to pick off Coalition (principally American) forces. Three of the FBI’s 29 most wanted terrorists are Hezbollah operatives, one of whom, Imad Mugniyah, is a senior leader who participated in most of the abovementioned actions and may have ties to al Qaeda.

It is strange that the U.S. hasn’t made more of a point of targeting Hezbollah in the global war on terrorism, since before 9/11 the organization practically defined the term. Despite all that Hezbollah has done to the United States, they were never called to account. The best we could do back in the 1980s was “arms for hostages,” which was a fiasco that nearly brought down President Reagan.

It was interesting to hear various U.S. and European officials talking about Israel exercising restraint or making a “proportional” response to the kidnappings in the first days of the crisis. Proportionality is a recognized principle of just-war theory. And it is often completely inappropriate. I recall attending a lecture on laws of war and asking an Air Force officer what he thought about it. He said, “Pilots don’t believe in proportionality. We like disproportionality. All of our guys come home, none of their guys do. That’s how we do business.” I mentioned the 1982 Israeli-Syrian air war over Lebanon, in which Israeli flyers scored 87 victories while losing no fighters. “Exactly,” he said.

It is particularly inappropriate for the U.S. to introduce an abstract limitation like “proportionality” in these circumstances. Traditionally, the American way of war is not limited. We do our best when we use overwhelming force, in wars that by their nature give us the opportunity to do so, like the Second World War. We do less well when circumstances or policies cause us to limit the use of force. Vietnam is the classic example. Rather than seek to settle the war by removing the root cause, namely the Hanoi regime, we sought to micro-calibrate a response just enough to ensure we would not be defeated in the South while resisting widening the war to the North. Alas, we were up against an enemy more concerned with total victory than with “sending a message,” so when our political will finally weakened we abandoned our allies and suffered a humiliating defeat. But we did not approach operations in Afghanistan or Iraq (at least in phases I-III) with a view towards proportionality — we used what we needed to win. Israel should have the same opportunity to pursue victory.

Incidentally I was amused by Hezbollah spokesman Husayn Rahhal’s statement that Israel “is trying to test our ability to deter. It is trying to change the bases of the conflict in order to have alone the ability to deter.” No, Israel is trying to defeat you, destroy you, and everyone like you. One may take issue with some of Israel’s specific target choices — imposing a land, sea and air blockade on all of Lebanon might be overkill. The country is in very difficult circumstances, and this won’t help.

It is a shame too, since there is a clear community of interest between Israel and Lebanon on the Hezbollah issue. The terrorist group, frequently lionized in the Western press for its health, education, and welfare programs, refuses to commit to peaceful participation in politics. Beirut has been unable to comply with UNSCR 1559 (2004), which called for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias," or resolution 1583 (2005) which called for Lebanon to “fully extend and exercise its sole and effective authority throughout the south.” The government has skirted these requirements by redefining Hezbollah as a “resistance group” rather than a “militia,” hence not covered by the resolutions. So now we are in a situation where rather than the Lebanese government being able to use Israeli assistance to clean out Hezbollah, it is placed in a no-win situation while the two powers battle it out. And that is the best case scenario; there are many that are far worse. For his part, Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is calling for all Lebanese to unite behind his struggle, saying that yes, he undertook the kidnapping on his own initiative, and brought about this unexpected Israeli response, but it would be pointless now to argue about whose fault the whole affair is.

But with respect to blame, many fingers are pointing right where they should — to Tehran. Hezbollah is a creature of Iran’s, and the timing of the crisis was well calculated to draw attention away from the uproar over the Iranian nuclear program. Israel’s resolute response is a message of its own, that it will not tolerate Iranian-inspired provocations. And from Arab capitals one hears talk of the unseen or unmentioned forces behind the crisis, a reference not to Zionist conspirators but Iran. Most astonishing was the scene at the meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo, where instead of the usual blanket denunciation of Israeli aggression, there was a split between those who defended Hezbollah and those who regarded the group as chaotic and destabilizing. Among the latter group were Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Iraq, and the Palestinian Authority. OK, then they got around to denouncing Israel, but the split in the Arab ranks was noteworthy, especially who sided against Hezbollah. Nasralluh denounced the “Arab rulers,” stating with pride that yes, his group is adventurous, and that he is not counting on any help from them, whom he lumped in with Israel and the U.S.

This showdown between Israel and Hezbollah had to happen sooner or later. With Iranian influence spreading through the region it is just as well it began now. Perhaps Israel can achieve what we could not over twenty years ago and take Hezbollah out of the regional equation. If in the process we get a little payback by proxy then it’s about time.

- James S. Robbins is senior fellow in national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council, a trustee for the Leaders for Liberty Foundation, and author of Last in Their Class: Custer, Picket and the Goats of West Point. Robbins is also an NRO contributor.

Until even a week ago the conventional wisdom was that there is not going to be another major war in the Middle East involving Israel. Now even the most optimistic observers are no longer sure. Meeting in Saint Petersburg this weekend, the leaders of the G-8 may try to stop a broader war, almost at the last minute. But, can they?

The reasons why a broader war may be in the cards are not hard to fathom. Israel, facing what is a pincer operation by both Hamas in the occupied territories and the Hezbollah in Lebanon believes it is facing an existential threat.

This does not mean that either Hamas or Hezbollah, or their combination, would be in a position to defeat Israel militarily. However, both are capable of pursuing a low intensity war against Israel virtually forever. And that, like all low intensity wars, would aim at breaking the spirit of the enemy, persuading more and more Israelis that their homeland is not a place in which to have a normal life and raise children, and that their best bet is to head for safe havens elsewhere. Low intensity war is also bad for any nation's economy. People cannot think of long-term investments when the see missile raining on them. The effects of low intensity war on Israel are even more strongly felt because of the country's demographic disadvantage. Living under the threat of suicide attacks is hardly an encouragement for making babies.

At the opposite side of the fight, Hamas and Hezbollah are also facing existential threats, as they know that Israel is determined to destroy them as political organisations.

Israel has refused to recognise the Hamas-led government and has succeeded in organising what amounts to an international quarantine against it. If Hamas ends up by tearing up its own charter and recognising the legitimacy of Israel's existence, it would spell its own doom as a radical Islamist movement. If, on the other hand, it persists with its no compromise stance it will be seen by many Palestinians as responsible for all the hardship they now suffer. Hamas in government is quite different from Hamas as an independent movement.

As for Hezbollah almost all of its prestige, or whatever is left of it, is based on the myth that it defeated the Israelis and drove them out of occupied southern Lebanon. At the same time Hezbollah is the target of United Nations resolution 1559 that demands its dissolution as an armed group. Hezbollah without arms would become just another Lebanese political party, garnering around 20 per cent of the votes.

The Hezbollah faces another, perhaps bigger, problem: it must develop its policies within a broader strategy worked out by the Islamic Republic in Tehran and the Baa'thist government in Damascus. As a result, it cannot simply decide to defuse the situation in the hope of keeping its military organisation intact. Iran, coming under growing pressure on the nuclear issue, is desperately looking for a diversion. And what better diversion than a mini-war that could keep international attention focused on the Israel-Lebanon-Palestine triangle? Syria, for its part, could profit from a limited war, between Israel and Hezbollah, by pointing out that its own presence in Lebanon had been a stabilising force and that efforts to exclude it from the Lebanese scene have generated greater instability.

In a sense, therefore, what we are witnessing is the opening shots in a proxy war between the Islamic Republic and Syria on one side and Israel on the other. As for Lebanon, it is, as so many other times in the past, being used by rival regional and international powers as a battlefield in which the Lebanese people are regarded as collateral damage at best.

Everyone knows that the Lebanese government does not have the power to implement Resolution 1559 and disarm the Hezbollah. Everyone also knows that Lebanon is not yet strong enough to ward off pressure and intervention from outside powers, this time Syria and the Islamic Republic.

The big question is this: will the Islamic Republic and Syria allow Israel to destroy Hezbollah's war machine and disarm its militia?

If Tehran and Damascus sit back and watch while Israel dismantles their principal asset in Lebanon, would they not lose all credibility as sponsors of radical movements in the Middle East and beyond? Would President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map start his presidency by sitting back and watch Israel wipe Hezbollah's militia off the Lebanese chessboard? And what would the Assad regime look like if it did nothing to prevent Hezbollah, the bastion of Syrian influence in Lebanon, being broken in the current round of fighting? To be sure, Syria still has some Maronite allies in Lebanon. But these allies are there because Hezbollah is there. Once Hezbollah is out of the equation as an armed group, watch for Michel Aoun and others running in all directions in search of new protectors.

The Irano-Syrian strategy, especially since Ahmadinejad's decision to make the destruction of the Jewish state a priority of his administration, would encourage those in Israel who insist that it should seize the current opportunity for breaking the Hezbollah's war machine even in the face of a broader war. In doing so Israel could claim that it was simply helping Lebanon implement Resolution 1559.

The stakes have been raised beyond anyone's expectation.

If Israel backs down now and ends its campaign without disarming the Hezbollah it would, in effect, hand Iran and Syria an unexpected victory. This would also spell the end of Lebanon's new democratic government and the return in force of Syrian and Iranian influence in Lebanon. At the other end of the spectrum in Palestine, such an Israeli retreat would give a badly hurt Hamas a second lease of life and greater vigour to pursue its radical strategy. If, on the other hand, Israel removes the Hezbollah from the Lebanese scene it would be the turn of the leaderships in Tehran and Damascus to come to terms with a major strategic setback that could encourage their internal enemies. What is certain is that this conflict will not end until one side wins and another side loses. The G-8 may try to postpone decision-time for a bit longer. But it is hard not to see that there are two visions of the Middle East, one backed by the United States and its allies, including Israel, the other promoted by Iran and Syria and their surrogates.

Since a synthesis of the two is not possible, even the G-8 may realise that they cannot prevent a broader regional war.

'When nothing else works, there is always Israel!" This is how the late Egyptian journalist Lutfi al-Khuli liked to describe the motto of Arab radicalism decades ago. The analysis was apt because the Arab obsession with Israel did work on countless occasions.

Despots used Israel as an excuse for their brutal rule. Corrupt leaders adopted an anti-Israel rhetoric as a diversion from their misdeeds. Confused intellectuals used Israel as an object of hate to hide their ineptitude.

Arab radicals were not alone in using Israel as the "other," whose hoped-for destruction would be the ultimate act of redemption for peoples seemingly abandoned by history. The late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Republic in Iran, also used anti-Israel rhetoric whenever he found himself in a tight corner.

MORE RECENTLY, three men have tried to play the Israel card as a means of getting out of their respective tight corners: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic, President Bashar Assad of Syria, and Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hizbullah. The reason is that these members of the triple alliance are under increasing pressure both from their domestic constituencies and from international opinion.

Ahmadinejad is under pressure to respond to a carrots-and-stick offer by the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany. He knows that a positive response to the offer could mark the end for his strategy of extending the Islamic Republic's influence throughout the Middle East. At the same time he knows that a rejection of the package could isolate his regime, bring about international sanctions and weaken his already shaky rule inside Iran.

To avoid that choice Ahmadinejad decided to play the Israel card. This meant moving the Hizbullah pawn that the Islamic Republic created in Lebanon in 1982 and has financed, trained and armed for the past quarter-century.

It is no accident that during the past 10 weeks arms supplies to Hizbullah have increased dramatically. In the same period the Islamic Republic's defense minister has met with Hizbullah leaders and commanders on at least two occasions.

According to Iranian media, the Islamic Republic has also increased the size of its military advisory delegation to Hizbullah as a "precaution against Israeli aggression."

SYRIA'S PRESIDENT Assad also found himself in need of an "Israel diversion." He and members of his family and administration risk indictment for alleged involvement in the murder of Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri. Worse still, his regime's opponents have just created a united front in which senior ex-Ba'athists sit alongside leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and prominent liberal and social-democratic figures.

Assad has tried to survive by becoming a liege of Teheran; but he knows that his Iranian masters might abandon him at any time.

Provoking a new conflict with Israel over Lebanon could give Assad a chance to cast himself in the role of the peacemaker. Buthaina Shaaban, one of Assad's aides, has hinted that, if allowed to return to Lebanon, the Syrians would be prepared to disarm Hizbullah and make sure that the Lebanese border with Israel is as calm as the cease-fire line between Israel and Syria has been for decades.

Assad may also be prepared to drop Hamas, just as he dropped the PKK as part of a deal he made with Turkey a decade ago.

The third member of the triple alliance, Hizbullah, also needs an Israeli diversion. With the departure of the Syrians and the beginnings of democratization in Lebanon, Hizbullah has found itself increasingly isolated. Its performance in Lebanon's first democratic general election was disappointing, to say the least.

Even more disappointing was its failure to fight the new democratic forces in the streets. Each time Hizbullah organized a demonstration against democratic forces, the latter responded with even bigger crowds. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of Lebanese want to see Hizbullah disarmed so that the country can have a single army under government control.

So what better tactic for Hizbullah than inventing a new war with Israel to remind the Lebanese that they still need the militia as their "national resistance"?

THE TROUBLE for Ahmadinejad, Assad and Hizbullah is that the Israel diversion may not work this time as it has done in the past.

The current conflict may have diverted some attention at the G-8 from the Iranian nuclear dossier. But the issue is unlikely to fade away.

Ahmadinejad knows that there is no substantial anti-Israel constituency inside Iran. His hope, therefore, is to win the support of the Arab regimes and masses for his ultra-radical stance against Israel. However, that has not happened. With the exception of Syria, no Arab regime has rallied behind the Islamic Republic over the nuclear issue. As for the mythical Arab Street, there is no evidence that it is about to explode in support of Ahmadinejad.

As for Syria, it is unlikely that the current conflict in Lebanon will divert international attention from the Assad regime's involvement in the Hariri murder. Nor is there any evidence that Washington may be prepared to make a deal with Damascus to insure the Assad regime in exchange for its cooperation on other issues, including disarming Hizbullah.

THE BIGGEST loser from this new Israel diversion may well be Hizbullah. Neither the Islamic Republic nor Syria is prepared to risk a bigger war in order to save it from destruction.

This was made clear Friday, when Ahmadinejad, speaking during a provincial tour, called on the "international community" to end the conflict by "restraining Israel." This was strange - coming from a man who, before the current fighting, had vowed to destroy Israel on more than a dozen occasions.

Inside Lebanon, Hizbullah has failed to enlist the support of General Michel Aoun, the Maronite politician who has signed an alliance with Nasrallah.

Ahmadinejad, Assad and Hizbullah may well have planned for a limited conflict with Israel, one in which the Jewish state would ultimately back down, handing them a moral victory. Their plan may have been based on the assumption that Israel would not dare widen the scope of the war triggered by Hamas and Hizbullah.

Today, the trio find themselves alone. Most Arabs refuse to be dragged into a bigger war - in the shaping of which they had no say. Moreover, most Lebanese do not see why they should risk the destruction of their country solely to allow Hizbullah to remain a state within a state.
The "Israel diversion" tactic may have passed its sell-by date.

The writer, an Iranian author and journalist, is editor of the Paris-based Politique Internationale.

Presumably you've turned a blind eye on the fact that Israel is killing so many innocent Lebanese (300, compared with 24 in Israel) and plans to turn Lebanon into a flaming hell-hole. They also have no plans to back off.

Presumably you've turned a blind eye on the fact that Israel is killing so many innocent Lebanese (300, compared with 24 in Israel) and plans to turn Lebanon into a flaming hell-hole. They also have no plans to back off.

Now, why wont Iran hurry up and NUKE THE PLACE

anusiya, with all due respect, when Hisbollah's civilian "adopt a Katushka" program involves the willing participation of the civilian population in letting Hizbollah park their Iranian and Syrian made missiles in their back yards (literally), then no one but that civilian head of household who's turned his backyard into a military launching pad is responsible for his inevitable homelessness, and the death of his family members as a result of that military instalation being taken out. Point being, the definition of the term "civilian" becomes debatable in this case.

The fact that Hisbollah uses the civilian population as human shields seems to have escaped your blind eye view of the situation, and is in itself a war crime.

As for the question as to why the IRI has not yet lived up to its promise to "wipe Israel off the map", if you were to think for a moment about it, I think the answer would be all too obvious.

Yeah, but Israel's taking it out on Lebanon, not Syria and IRI. And it did say it wouldn't die down until LEBANON was a flaming hell-hole, not Syria.

2 Israeli soldiers get kidnapped. So Israel should kidnap 2 Hezbollah and a kill a few more, not turn lebanon into waste land

What many people like you & most Europeans don't understand, is that Hezbollah is a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. They control Iran, & Lebanon. They have inflicated so much cruelty and violence to Iranians and other people in the world... that I would celebrate when every single one of them is killed. What they did to Israel was ACT OF WAR, crossing over killing 8 of their soldiers, and kidnapping two. If Mexico does that to the US, you better believe it, the US will whipp their ass..
It is unfortunate that in war innocent people gets killed as well.... but war is not pretty. I do hope Israel will drive these savages into the abyss... & hopefully their 70 virgins will be waiting to greet them.... f..... Hezbollah.

Israel has eveery right to drive hezbolla to the abyss, but turning lebanon into a flaming hell hole? the country's still recovering from loads of wars fought previously. the number of lebanese innocent people is more than 10 times the amount of israel's, plus israels not getting anywhere near as damaged. israel's using hezbolla as an excuse to destroy lebanon. they are (also) savages.

Israel has eveery right to drive hezbolla to the abyss, but turning lebanon into a flaming hell hole? the country's still recovering from loads of wars fought previously. the number of lebanese innocent people is more than 10 times the amount of israel's, plus israels not getting anywhere near as damaged. israel's using hezbolla as an excuse to destroy lebanon. they are (also) savages.

WRONG WRONG WRONG AGAIN... DO YOU KNOW WHO ACTUALLY DESTROYED LEBANON & IRAN? IT WAS HEZBOLLAH NOT ISRAEL... WHEN HEZBOLLAH ARE THROWING ROCKETS EVERY 5 SECONDS ON ISREAL, ISRAEL HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DESTROY HEZBOLLAH... LEBANON WAS ALREADY DESTROYED BY HEZBOLLAH. ISRAEL IS DESTROYING THE PART OF LEBANON THAT IS UNDER OCCUPATION BY HEZBOLLAH, JUST LIKE IRAN WHICH IS UNDER OCCUPATION BY HEZBOLLAH. I AM STARTING TO WONDER IF YOU ARE ONE OF THEM???

actually, all i'm doing is saying what the BBC has reported here in UK. Israel's response is OTT, considering what triggered this in the first place - hezbollah capturing 2 soldiers. Israel should concentrate more on destroying Hezbollah people as opposed to randomly bombarding Lebanon in a hope that they will.

I dislike hezbollah as much as the next guy, but seriously? 306 lebanses civilians have been killed (compared with 15 in israel), 1000+ are injured (compared with 338 in israel) and only at least 8 hezbollah ppl have died.

Surely there are more effective ways of doing this than blitzing the living nonsense out of a recovering country? All this will do is strengthen an anti-Israel attitude in Lebanon and have the lebanese ppl back Hezbollah even more because Israel's killing Lebanese almost indescriminately.

“We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves.” Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

Listening to BBC! that tells me a lot about you!!! BBC is the biggest enemy of Iranians...... you need to learn about BBC's history and Iran's history.... BBC is the British version of Aljazeera!!!
Every word you say is the same nonsense crap that comes out of BBC........Actually, thank god that you exposed yourself, a brain-washed BBC, Hezbollah sympathizer............